Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36346158›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Implementation of a patient-reported experience measure in a Dutch disability care organization: A process evaluation of cocreated tailored strategies.

Marjolein van Rooijen, Anneke van Dijk-de Vries, Stephanie Lenzen, Ruth Dalemans, Albine Moser, Anna J H M Beurskens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Implementation of a patient-reported experience measure in a Dutch disability care organization: A process evaluation of cocreated tailored strategies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marjolein van RooijenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0322-1979
Anneke van Dijk-de VriesDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2050-5992
Stephanie LenzenResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7803-8506
Ruth DalemansResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Albine MoserResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Anna J H M BeurskensDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLZuyd University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 24/7 disability care facilities, patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are important to help healthcare professionals understand what matters to care users and to improve the quality of care. However, the successful implementation of a PREM is complex. In a Dutch disability care organization, stakeholders cocreated tailored implementation strategies aimed at improving the use and integration of a qualitative PREM. This study gives insights into the uptake and experiences with these cocreated implementation strategies and the perceived impact of the set of strategies.

methodsWe performed a prospective process evaluation between February 2020 and February 2021. We collected data in three disability care facilities from 35 care users, 11 professionals, 3 facility managers and 4 organization representatives. Data collection included observations during kick-offs and learning goal meetings and several attendance checklists. We collected 133 questionnaires (Time 0 and Time 1). We conducted 35 individual semistructured interviews and an online focus group interview. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using directed content analysis.

resultsThe exposure to and adoption of strategies was between 76% and 100%. Participants were positive about tailoring the strategies to each facility. Implementation was hindered by challenges in care users' communication and COVID-19. The perceived impact referred to an improved understanding of the goal and added value of the PREM and better preparation and execution of the PREM. The impact of the set of strategies was mainly experienced on the micro level.

conclusionThe uptake of the cocreated implementation strategies was acceptable. The participants valued the tailored approach, which enabled them to focus on facility-specific learning goals. Stakeholder engagement and co-created strategies may have strengthened the adoption of and experiences with the implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In this article, we present the process evaluation of implementation strategies for the integrated use of a PREM in disability care. A development group consisting of communication vulnerable care users, trainers and professionals developed the implementation strategies. The disability care organization was responsible for the planning and organization of the implementation process. During the process evaluation the end users, trainers, professionals and managers tailored the implementation strategies to their own settings and needs. Researchers observed this implementation process and interviewed the stakeholders about their experiences and the perceived impact.

Indexed as

COVID-19Focus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatientscare usercocreationcommunication-vulnerabledisability careimplementation

Identifiers

PMID36346158
PMCPMC9854305
OpenAlexW4308551936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.